On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >>I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it
> >>is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful.
> >Prove that it isn't.
> It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate
> his assumptions.
Proving that is is just a matter of finding one person who claims non-free
is important and useful to them. People have already posted to this list
explaining why it's important and useful to them.
It's quite reasonable to want to remove non-free *in spite* of it being
important and useful, of course, but no one who wants to has done a
particularly good job of trying to balance the concerns yet. Wasn't it the
job of the proponent to prove his arguments and support his assumptions?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature